Embu, Inc. v. Tallapoosa Cnty. Comm'n

Citation: 263 So. 3d 731Docket: 2161014

Court: Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama; April 20, 2018; Alabama; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

EMBU, Inc. appealed a judgment from the Montgomery Circuit Court favoring the Tallapoosa County Commission. The appeal was dismissed as the circuit court's judgment was deemed void. EMBU filed a petition on December 8, 2016, seeking a writ of certiorari and declaratory judgment against the county commission, individual commissioners, and members of the Alabama Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC Board). EMBU claimed ownership of a convenience store and alleged that its liquor license, initially granted by the ABC Board, was revoked the day after the county commission denied approval. EMBU argued the denial was unconstitutional, arbitrary, and capricious, and sought (1) a declaratory judgment to vacate the denial and order the ABC Board to issue a liquor license, and (2) a writ of certiorari to set aside the county commission's decision. 

An amended petition included an affidavit supporting EMBU's claims. The county commission and its members generally denied the allegations, while the ABC Board and its members moved to dismiss based on immunity and lack of authority to issue a license without county commission approval. The circuit court held a hearing on February 22, 2017, denying EMBU's motion for emergency relief and dismissing claims against the ABC Board and county commissioners. After an evidentiary hearing on May 2, 2017, the court ruled in favor of the defendants on July 31, 2017. EMBU filed a timely appeal on September 12, 2017, which was subsequently transferred between courts due to jurisdictional issues.

The circuit court dismissed all defendants in EMBU's petition except for the county commission, which EMBU did not contest on appeal. The appeal focuses solely on the county commission's denial of EMBU's liquor license application, which EMBU claims was arbitrary and capricious. The court must first clarify the nature of the circuit court's review, which EMBU styled as a "petition for writ of certiorari and for declaratory judgment." Since there is no statutory right for direct appeal from the county commission's liquor license denial, judicial review is properly conducted through common-law writ of certiorari. The court confirms it has jurisdiction to review the county commission's decision via this petition. The common-law writ of certiorari serves as a means for a superior court to assess the actions of an inferior tribunal, and such review can only be initiated in the circuit court of the county where the inferior tribunal is located. This principle is supported by precedents affirming the authority of circuit courts to review decisions made by state boards or commissions based on their jurisdictional location.

The Montgomery Circuit Court has jurisdiction over remedial writs related to actions of a state agency located within Montgomery County. The supreme court expressed skepticism regarding the authority of a circuit court in a different county to address such matters. In Ex parte Alabama Textile, the court referenced Dunbar v. Frazer, which examined whether the Montgomery Circuit Court could issue a peremptory mandamus to compel a probate judge in Lee County to grant a liquor license, indicating jurisdictional limits based on county boundaries and the necessity of legislative regulation.

The court clarified that while the subject-matter jurisdiction is statewide, the exercise of that jurisdiction is confined to specific territorial limits determined by law. The Circuit Court's authority, including appellate and supervisory powers, is derived from statutory provisions rather than inherent powers or constitutional mandates. Specifically, these powers come from section 657 of the Code, which allows the Circuit Court to oversee inferior jurisdictions.

Judicial actions taken outside the court's authorized territory are void. If the legislature grants additional powers to the Circuit Court, it implies that such authority will be restricted to the same geographical limits as its original jurisdiction. The duties of county officers and the jurisdiction of inferior courts are localized, and supervisory authority is intended to be exercised exclusively within the county where the inferior jurisdiction exists. This interpretation prevents a scenario where multiple circuit courts could hold concurrent supervisory authority over the same inferior court, thus preserving the distinct and localized nature of jurisdiction. The principles established in Dunbar are relevant in the context of both mandamus and certiorari proceedings, reinforcing the requirement for the Circuit Court to maintain jurisdiction within its defined territorial limits.

A circuit court lacks supervisory jurisdiction over a local government's denial of a liquor license when the government is located outside the court's territorial limits. Specifically, the Montgomery Circuit Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the Tallapoosa County Commission's denial of EMBU's liquor license via a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari, rendering the circuit court's judgment void and leading to the dismissal of EMBU's appeal. Although EMBU's appeal notice was filed 43 days after the judgment—typically untimely—an emergency court closure allowed for timely filing under the applicable rules. The circuit court's review of petitions for the common-law writ is limited to affirming or quashing the proceedings. Statutory provisions outline procedures for remedial writ petitions, including an affidavit requirement that is non-jurisdictional. Additionally, the Alabama Code provides scenarios where the ABC Board may grant a license despite a governing body's denial, contingent upon a circuit court order setting aside the decision in the relevant county or municipality.